Talk:Malinae

I noticed this page is extremely similar to Maleae. I'm not much of a taxonomist but I assume Malinae is the subtribe of Maleae. Would someone kindly clarify or merge?
 * I've changed the lead image at Maleae, which I hope clarifies. The Maleae page is much longer, and it seems to me that it explains the situation quite thoroughly. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd hope Malinae gets published soon, but at present it seems kind of bizarre to have an article with a taxonomic article with where the title is an unpublished name. The conservation proposal for Malus doesn't address subtribes specifically. The reference that specifically talks about this taxon (and the source for most of the information in the article) calls it Pyrinae. It seems to me like it would be better to title this page Pyrinae with a note about the correct name. 01:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talk • contribs)
 * Just in time it has been published! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Annoyance
An annoyance: Malinae is a subtribe, even though in animal taxonomic nomenclature -inae denotes a subfamily, rather than a subtribe. It would be good if taxonomic nomenclature were standardized so that -inae always denoted the same taxonomic rank. Perhaps even standardize the suffix for family so that we don't have animal and viral families ending in -idae, and plant and bacterial families in -aceae.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! You know, they tried to achieve that with the BioCode which sank like a stone in 2000, and again in 2011. They can't even agree on how to cite the authorities and dates that go with a scientific name (zoology uses one name, parentheses and a date; botany uses two names, parentheses and no dates), and this problem of standardizing the endings of the different ranks seems to be probably an order of magnitude more challenging to agree on. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference in authority citation is pretty trivial when you look at the reason behind it (which is a much bigger stumbling block to unifying the codes). In the ICZN, priority lies with the epithet. In the ICNAFP, priority lies with the combination. The date of the combination (and the combining authority) don't matter under the ICZN. Having a year under the ICNAFP would be quite useful, but combining authority is a more critical piece of data for tracking down the publication where the combination was made. Take Aus bus 1850 and Zus bus 1849. Lump Zus under Aus in 2013. Under the ICZN, a replacement name is needed for Aus bus (the newer epithet). Under the ICNAFP, a replacement name is needed for Zus bus (the combination of the species in Aus is newer). Plantdrew (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)